That actually is quite telling. I'm posting this here but need to find the article with the exact statement. Basically, the union is sacrificing the Hostess employees — the whole company and its supply chain, in fact — as a warning to other companies about what can happen when you seek concessions. Let that sink in. This is part of a national strategy and the union leaders are not acting in the best interests of the local union membership, their dues-paying victims. My advice to the newly unemployed is to look up the Mongo quote "Mongo only pawn... in game of life." That and find a right-to-work lawyer who is willing to tilt at windmills. This could be hugh.
There was a story out of Orlando, the liquidation filing was what they wanted. Their union rep had convinced them that liquidation would SAVE THEIR JOBS at the original pay and beenfits.
I am astounded at the idiocy. 5,800 “bakers” are out of work, how many will be needed by the new band name owners who likely already have their own bakeries and workforce? How likely is the new company going to be to put these idjits at the top of the list if there are new positions needed?
Not very, IMO.
“Unions have been losing power for years,” said Ken Rumney, a striking worker outside of the Hostess plant in Biddeford on Friday. “This is an exceptional case. If Hostess had been allowed to get away with what they'd been trying to do, other corporations would have lined up to try the same tactics. Hopefully, this will be an example to other companies not to [try to] break their unions.”Has Ken let the cat out of the bag? Was this in fact a nationally-orchestrated chess move using Hostess, its employees, and supply chain as pawns in a larger game of union dominance? Where is the breach-of-trust line crossed between the members of the local and the union management chain? For that matter, by "nationalizing" the fight, was the union negotiating with Hostess in good faith? This could be a whole new ambulance to chase!